you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 10 months ago* (16 children)

A farmed salmon would use / pollute orders of magnitude more water then an ai image. Even if peta was willing to buy salmon there wouldve been way more resources used to create this in real life then via ai. Just the rice in the sushi would've required more water to grow and then prepare compared to the AI image.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    How about- egads!- using an actual image or picking up a fucking pencil

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 10 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    If that human is being paid a fair wage to do it I don't see the problem. I also don't see how paying a single artist is going to "keep capitalism viable for an extra year". Sounds like you just want artists to starve so you can have some AI vomit pixels at you and call it art.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    Yet again discounting the training costs...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Estimates for how much an AI image costs in water varies widely, estimates from 0.4 liters to 50 liters with the median I'm seeing at about a 1-5 liters. Even taking the 50 liter estimate which we can assume includes training and electricity generation to get a number that high that is far below a serving of rice which costs 276 liters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Even with the training costs, it is very little water compared to mass scale agriculture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Except agriculture puts food on the table, and ai data centers just spits out soulless art and tells people to kill themselves. I would not consider them to be comparable. 

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    We produce food in such a vast excess compared to what we need that we feed most of it to animals so we can have beef instead despite being vastly less efficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    And I support degrowth. I do not see how this helps you. I never said we don't have an excess, I just said we need agriculture and we dont need ai data centers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, a process required to make food and a process to make an image that could have easily been done by an artist or simply pulled from one of the countless sites full of existing free images, are totally comparable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    How much energy would have been taken in the time it takes you to draw a poster on a computer?

    I would actually be interested in the comparison, how long is a typical model trained for and how much is it used. The actual generation usage is typically a few seconds of a normal gaming PC. Training is more, but its then used by many.

  • source
  • parent